Ramifications of White House Green Card Ban

On April 22, 2020, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation suspending the entry of aliens who are outside of the United States, and who either do not currently have a valid immigrant visa, or who do not have an official travel document permitting that alien to travel to the United States.  An immigrant visa is one that permits an alien to live in the United States permanently.  Such immigrants are legal permanent residents, or, colloquially, are said to hold a green card.  The proclamation is effective April 23, 2020 at 11:59pm, eastern daylight savings time.

President issued this proclamation in response to the COVID-19 crisis.  As of April 21, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that there are currently 802,583 cases of COVID-19 in the United States.  The disease has caused 44,575 U.S. deaths.

To slow the spread of the disease, the vast majority of states have issued stay-at-home orders, closing non-essential businesses.  As a result, over 22 million people have filed for unemployment benefits.  Trump has expressed his desire to begin re-opening the country, and putting people back to work.  He claims that the proclamation banning new green cards is necessary to protect the jobs of those Americans currently out of work.

On one hand, the White House has tailored this proclamation somewhat narrowly.  The green card ban does not affect doctors, nurses, healthcare workers and medical researchers working on combatting the spread of COVID-19, or their spouses and children under age twenty-one.  Certain family-based immigrants also escape Trump's green card ban.  They include: (1) spouses of U.S. citizens; (2) children, under age 21, of U.S. citizens; (3) prospective adoptees of U.S. citizens; (4) members of the U.S. Armed Forces; and (5) spouses and children of U.S. Armed Forces members.

Other immigrants not affected by the ban are: (1) foreign investors (these are foreigners who have either invested $1 million in the United States and employ ten people, or invested $500,000 in a distressed area and employ five people); (2) Iraqi and Afghani translators; (3) Iraqis and Afghanis who provided special services to the U.S. Government; (4) aliens whose entry would be in the national interest of the United States.

The ban does not affect those who already possess an immigrant visa, or those who are in the United States and applying for an immigrant visa.  Thus, an H-1B specialty worker, that is, an alien worker with a temporary employment visa whose job requires a bachelor's degree at a minimum, may still apply for an immigrant visa. There is a question, however, of whether such aliens may leave the United States, have their green card issued at a consulate in a foreign country and return to the United States.  If legally possible, such aliens may want to try to adjust to status while still present in the United States.

The ban also does not affect those currently in removal proceedings in the United States, or people who are seeking asylum, withholding of removal, or protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture.  Moreover, law enforcement agencies may still request that individuals necessary for their objectives be permitted to enter the United States.

This is due to the limits to the president's immigration power.  In 2018, the Supreme Court held, in the case of Trump v. Hawaii, that the president has broad powers to suspend the entry of aliens who are trying to come into the United States.  With respect to aliens already present in the United States, Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration and nationality.

In the introduction to the proclamation, Trump notes that while the U.S. Department of Labor  is responsible for issuing labor certifications, such certifications take time to adjudicate, and therefore do not reflect the current U.S. labor market.  A labor certification is a determination that there are no U.S. workers who are ready, willing and able to accept a specific job with a U.S. employer.  U.S. employers must obtain a labor certification before petitioning for an alien worker to receive an employment-based visa.  The employer is required to demonstrate, by engaging in certain recruitment methods, that it is not able to fill a needed position with a U.S. worker.  It is a challenging and rigorous process, that can take over a year for the Labor Department to grant.

The proclamation is set to expire sixty days after the effective date.  However, it may be extended as necessary.

The President has further called on the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, other measures that may be appropriate to stimulate the U.S. economy, ensuring that U.S. workers get priority.  This may mean that while temporary employment visas are unaffected by this proclamation, such visas in the future may be subject to restriction.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.

References

Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who May Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak (April 22, 2020).

Trump v. Hawaii, Slip Op. No. 17-965 (June 26, 2018).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Coronavirus Disease 2019."

Chapman, Steve, "Trump's immigration ban won't help fight COVID-19," Chicago Tribune (April 22, 2020).

Chalfant, Morgan and Bernal, Rafael, "Trump signs executive order limiting immigration," The Hill (April 22, 2020).

Kapur, Shahil, "Trump Halts Immigration for 60 Days.  Here's What the President's Order Means," NBC News (April 22, 2020).

Perper, Rosie, "Trumps signs executive order suspending immigration into the U.S. for 60 days," Business Insider (April 22, 2020).

Williams, Pete, "Does Trump have the authority to halt immigration?", NBC News (April 21, 2020).

Temporary Restraining Order Blocks Trump Administration from Implementing Rule Requiring New Immigrants to Have Health Insurance

On November 2, 2019, Judge Michael Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order ("TRO"), preventing the Trump Administration from implementing its new policy of requiring aliens applying for visas to become lawful permanent residents to demonstrate that they will be covered by an approved health insurance plan within 30 days of entering the United States.  The Trump Administration was set to implement the policy on November 3, 2019.

A group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the policy on October 30, 2019.  The followed up by filing a motion for a TRO on November 1, 2019.  The Court held an emergency hearing on November 2, 2019.  The parties presented oral arguments at the hearing, but did not have time to file written arguments.

The Government had argued that the plaintiffs made their own emergency, by delaying until a few days before the policy was to go in effect to file their complaint and motion.  Judge Simon disagreed, noting that the Presidential Policy announcing the new policy was published on October 4, 2019, and that under the circumstances, filing a complaint twenty-six days after the issuance of the Proclamation was not an unreasonable delay.

Pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation, if an applicant for an immigrant visa could not show that he or she would be able to purchase an approved health insurance policy within 30 days of entering the United States, they would be deemed inadmissible as likely to become a public charge, and barred from entering the United States.

The Court first noted that Congress had addressed the public charge grounds of inadmissibility in the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA").  Congress provided that a number of factors should be examined to determine whether a person is likely to become a public charge, which include the alien's age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, and education and skills.  No one factor was to be determinative.  The statute did not mention a person's health insurance status as one of those factors.

Moreover, the Proclamation listed a number of health insurance plans that would acceptable.  The Court found that almost all of the listed types of insurance plans would be unavailable to most intending immigrants.  In addition, the Proclamation excluded any health insurance plan purchased through a state's marketplace pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) if the state subsidized the plan.  Thus, the Court noted that the Proclamation excluded the one type of health insurance plan many intending immigrants would be able to afford.  Furthermore, the Court noted that Congress had rejected a proposal to consider the receipt of non-cash benefits from the government in making the public charge consideration.  The Presidential Proclamation, therefore, was inconsistent with the congressional intent as expressed through the INA.

Because this was an extraordinary measure being taken by the Court at such an early stage in the lawsuit, Judge Simon limited the TRO to 28 days, unless extended by the Court.  The Court further scheduled another hearing on November 22, 2019.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Memorandum Supporting President's Deferred Action Program

The White House released the memorandum written by the Justice Department detailing the legal support for his deferred action program.  Through this memorandum, President Obama's legal counsel provides analysis on whether it is permissions for: (1) the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize its resources to target undocumented aliens who are criminals; (2) the President to issue deferred action to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents; and (3) the President to issue deferred action to parents of DACA recipients.

 

Interestingly, the Justice Department concludes that while it is permissible to issue deferred action to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, it would not be permissible to do so for parents of DACA recipients.  The distinction appears to lie in the fact that U.S. citizens and permanent residents have a legal status, whereas DACA recipients do not.

 

The release of this memorandum would seem to indicate that the President will not expand his deferred action program to cover the parents of DACA recipients later, as some have surmised.  To do so would clearly contradict the advice from his own Justice Department.

 

It is also interesting to note that this memorandum does not cover the spouses of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.  This is not to say that such undocumented aliens would be ineligible to receive deferred action, merely that this memorandum, and presumably the President's program, will not cover such aliens at this time.

 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

(703) 837-8832

(571) 551-6069 (ESP)

Wkovatch@kovatchlegalservices.comn

Marriage Equality and Full Faith and Credit

I had my first consultation with a same sex couple in a post Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) world. Without giving away any specific facts, this was a gay couple in a long term relationship living in Virginia seeking immigration advice. I suggested that if they were to get married in the District of Columbia, we could file a visa petition on behalf of the non-citizen spouse. But, there would be one issue that could complicate matters. 

That is, under current Virginia law a same sex marriage performed in a state where it is legal will not be recognized. I warned that USCIS could use that as a reason to deny the petition. That is, while the marriage would be legal where it was performed, it would not be legal in the state of residence. 

In my honest opinion, I don't think this Administration would split hairs like that. To the contrary, given how quickly USCIS approved a visa petition for a married gay couple two days after the Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA, I think this Administration would likely approve a petition involving a DC marriage even if the couple is living in Virginia. Nonetheless, my opinion could be wrong, and thus I had to warn my potential clients up front. 

But this does bring up an interesting issue. The Constitution requires the states to give full faith and credit to the actions and records of another state. Thus, a marriage performed in Ohio, for example, must be recognized in Virginia. 

Still, I believe that some states will stick to their guns, and continue to refuse to recognize same sex marriages until forced to do so by the Supreme Court. I think Virginia and North Carolina are among those states. 

The next round of litigation may be over the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. In fact, I would not doubt that some organization has already drafted up the Complaint, ready to file for the right case. In the end, I believe that same sex marriages will have to be recognized in all states.  Otherwise, the full faith and credit clause would be meaningless. Virginia may not be required to allow same sex couples to marry within its borders. But eventually, Virginia may be required to recognize a DC same sex marriage as legal. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

(703) 837-8832

Info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com

Confirmed: Same Sex Couples May Obtain Immigration Benefits

The New York Times is reporting that the first green card to a same sex couple was issued on Friday, June 28, 2013.  Julian Marsh, a U.S. citizen from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, married Traian Popov, who is from Bulgaria and applied for a green card.  Mr. Popov received word that his green card was approved by email, an unusual move which signifies the desire of the Obama Administration to move quickly to come in compliance withe the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor.

If you are a same sex couple looking to apply for immigration benefits, call me at (703) 837-8832 for an appointment.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.
(703) 837-8832
info@kovatchimmigrationlaw.com